Monday, April 29, 2013

Any breed out there is going to have a tendency to attack.
Jennifer Bender, Animal Services Supervisor, Lodi, CA

* * * * *

On April 11th Julia Dare and her Dachshund Shelby were walking near Lodi Lake when a pit bull broke free of its collar and leash. Ms Dare was injured while protecting Shelby, who was killed in the attack. The pit bull's owner gave false contact information and has not been seen since Shelby's death.

On the same day, 17 miles away in Stockton, Claudia Gallardo was killed by a pit bull named Russia.

Eleven days later nearly 200 goats were killed by pit bulls 21 miles away, in French Camp.

San Joaquin County has a pit bull problem.

* * * * *

As does America. There have been 11 dog attacks fatal to humans in the first four months of 2013 in the US, all of them by pit bulls. Two of the eleven canine homicides have been in California.

139 humans have been seriously injured by dogs in the first 116 days of the year, through April 23, 2013. 135 of those 139 attacks, over 97%, have been by pit bulls. 99 of the 135 people injured by pit bulls, nearly one person a day, have been permanently disfigured or lost a limb from the pit bull attack.

Pit bull attacks on our more vulnerable animal companions, like Shelby, are estimated to be on the order of 10x the number of attacks on humans. (See below)

* * * * *

There are still people who are unaware of these figures. And there are those who refuse to acknowledge them. Attacks by pit bulls are so glaringly disproportionate that it's impossible to misinterpret the data. Yet there is a strange disconnect in the way Animal Control Officers discuss pit bull attacks. For example,

But pit bulls aren't more aggressive than other breeds, according to Jennifer Bender, Animal Services supervisor for the Lodi Police Department. They’re just prone to more violent attacks because of their size and strength, she said.

Ms Bender is wrong. Pit bulls are not only "prone to more violent attacks," but they also attack more often than other breeds. Even though they constitute only 5% of the canine population, pit bulls are responsible for more of the disfiguring attacks than all other breeds combined.

Ms Bender's comment bears an eerie resemblance to the remark by Tim Jennings on the other side of the country. A week after the attack on Shelby two pit bulls killed Carver, a FEMA certified disaster dog in Thomasville, NC. They broke out of their own enclosure and broke into Carver's fenced back yard; one pit bull dug under Carver's fence and one climbed over the fence to attack. Mr Jennings noted wryly that the dogs were just being dogs.

Did Ms Bender or Mr Jennings consider that their comments appear to dismiss the severity of their respective attacks? What impulse could motivate a person to defend a pit bull in the moments after that dog attacked and killed another, more vulnerable canine companion? Neither of these comments were solicited by questions from journalists; both Animal Control Officers volunteered to defend pit bulls when a defense was uncalled for, and weirdly out of place. This follows in the manner of compulsive pit bull advocacy.

The thread connecting Ms Bender's remarks to Mr Jennings' is that both Animal Control Officers apparently believe that pit bulls are no more aggressive than other breeds. The National Animal Control Association (NACA) guideline on this matter says it directly:

This "breed-neutral" approach to canine aggression is patently wrong; it implies that Yorkshire Terriers are as aggressive -- and as dangerous -- as pit bulls. This is an outrage to reason. If all breeds were as aggressive as pit bulls we would not have co-evolved with them for millennia, inviting them into our homes and hearths. We invented only one type of dog to be so uniquely aggressive.

Animal Control Officers on both sides of the country must come to grips with the reality they, and we, face: pit bulls are inherently aggressive and a danger to us, to our more vulnerable animal companions, and to the human-animal bond.

Notes:
Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here. This page may also include information from Dogsbite and Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from an earlier post (RISPCA vs Boston, Oct 14, 2012). It is included here as part of our series on animal welfare professionals and canine aggression.]

* * * * *

No animal should be trusted because they are unpredictable entities.
Dr. E.J. Finocchio, RI SPCA

* * * * *

Dr Finocchio holds a far more nuanced opinion of pit bulls than most SPCA directors, but his Oct 8th comment continues to trouble us. Then, while reading the Oct 11 East Boston Times-Free Press we noticed the following comment from a reader:

. . . since the media only focuses on what they hope are pit bull attacks we never get a fair representation of the reality of having at least 75 million dogs (carnivores) in the US.

Carnivores? The word carnivores evokes images of wolves stalking their prey, which loops back to Dr Finocchio's insinuation that domestic dogs retain a bit of feral unpredictability.

It's not uncommon to read accounts of pit bull attacks in which the dog's owner explains that his dog has a "high prey drive;" the term is sometimes offered as an explanation for the attack. The phrase is a euphemism indicating that the pit bull has aggressive tendencies. While some owners exhibit pride in their dog's "high prey drive," others can't bring themselves to admit that their pit bull is more aggressive than other breeds; they'd rather believe that all dogs still retain a bit of canis lupis. Dr Finocchio and millions of others may have succumbed to this belief because we've become accustomed to the havoc of fighting breeds living in our midst.

Fortunately we have someone with the good sense of Alexandra Semyonova, who reminds us (in Myth 29) that the domestic dog is not a naturally aggressive species. Dr Finocchio may choose to reconsider his remarks after reading Ms Semyonova.

* * * * *Notes:

Statistics in SRUV are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here. Also including information from Dogsbite and Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The bull-dog differs from all others, even from the mastiff, in giving no warning of his attack by his barking. He grapples his opponents without in the least estimating their comparative weight and powers. The bull-dog is possessed of less sagacity and less attachment than any of the hound tribe; he is therefore less favored, and more rarely bred with care, excepting by professed amateurs of sports and feelings little commendable to humanity. He never leaves his hold, when once he has got it, while life lasts.

* * * * *

This description of the pit bull's ancestor was written by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Hamiliton Smith and appeared in his volume titled The Natural History of Dogs (published 1839-1840 by W.H. Lizars of Edinburgh, Scotland).

The passage was anthologized in The Universal Natural History: Natural History in Anecdote, by Alfred H. Miles (Profusely Illustrated With Colored Plates, Dodd Mead & Co., New York. 1895. 385 pages).

Notes:
SRUV uses the definition of "pit bull" as found in the Omaha Municipal Code Section 6-163. As pit bulls are increasingly crossed with exotic mastiffs, Catahoula Leopard Dogs and other breeds, the vernacular definition of "pit bull" must be made even more inclusive.

Sources cited by news media sometimes refer to "Animal Advocates" or sometimes "Experts." In many cases these words are used to refer to single-purpose pit bull advocates who have never advocated for any other breeds or species of animals. Media would be more accurate to refer to these pit bull advocates as advocates of fighting breeds.

Similarly, in many cases pit bull advocates refer to themselves as "dog lovers" or "canine advocates" and media often accepts this usage. The majority of these pit bull advocates are single-purpose advocates of fighting breeds and should be referenced accurately.

Statistics:
Statistics quoted on SRUV are from the nation's authoritative source for current dog attack statistics, the 30+ year, continuously updated Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada.View or download the current PDF

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

It’s really sad, because the dogs basically are just being dogs. These are violations of irresponsible owners.
Forsyth County NC Animal Control Director Tim Jennings

* * * * *

Mr Jennings refers to the April 18th attack on Carver, a Border Collie, by two pit bulls. Carver is a FEMA certified disaster dog, trained to find survivors in building collapses and other disasters. Carver is currently under the care of a veterinarian but his survival is still in doubt.*

Mr Jennings dismissal of the attack on Carver as just dogs being dogs is disgraceful.

The two pit bulls were involved in a similar attack in January. As a result of the January attack the pit bulls were termed "potentially dangerous" and were returned to the safety and comfort of their home.

Mr Jennings appears to believe that all dogs are prone to attacking one another. The belief that all dogs are naturally aggressive is inaccurate, but is gaining credibility as a consequence of the proliferation of pit bulls.

Mr Jennings is wrong about the aggressiveness of dogs. He will not find two Golden Retrievers attacking a Border Collie. In the execution of his professional duties he will not deal with two Yorkshire Terriers attacking a Dachshund. The pit bull attack on Carver was not a case of dogs being dogs, doing what comes naturally. These were pit bulls being pit bulls.

We have all witnessed dogs being dogs, when they play together for hours on end, until they collapse in exhaustion. Dogs being dogs is when children play with a dog all day without concern, then collapse in exhaustion together. For most parents these scenarios are becoming more and more rare, as concerns over dog attacks increase.

Pit bull attacks on more vulnerable animal companions, on livestock, and on humans has altered our understanding of dogs, and it has altered the way we share our lives with dogs. More and more public spaces such as parks, Little League games, parades, and fairs are off-limits to all dogs because of the threat of violence from a single category of dog: fighting breeds.

Our society has become far too tolerant of dog-on-dog violence due to intentional misinformation from pit bull advocates. They claim it is normal dog behavior, that this kind of violence is just dogs being dogs. By repeated insistence that all dogs are aggressive these advocates have blurred public perception. It is the constant threat of pit bull attacks that has corrupted the bond we share with our canine companions, and diminished the world we will pass on to our children. We can reverse this trend by recognizing that the danger comes from pit bulls and fighting breeds. It is up to all of us to protect ourselves and our canine companions by recognizing that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and ought not to live among us.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Officials say there is no investigation and there will be no charges. Police and the Brooke County prosecutor agreed that this is just an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to a terrible accident.

* * * * *

The "accident" referred to by officials was an attack on a five-year old child by a pit bull.

According to news accounts, the family had adopted the five-year old pit bull from a local shelter on Thursday and the pit bull attacked the child on Friday afternoon.

Police, City Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Prosecuting Attorneys across the country have taken different approaches to prosecuting attacks by family pit bulls. Many prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges against parents whose children have been injured (or worse) by a pit bull the parents themselves brought into the home.

There have been nine fatal dog attacks in the US in calendar year 2013, every one by a pit bull. Six of these canine homicides have been children -- an average of two a month.* There has been a disfiguring pit bull attack on a human nearly every day this year; dozens of children have survived pit bull attacks but will be disfigured for life. These deaths and maimings constitute an unacknowledged epidemic. When a single type of dog is responsible for all the deaths, and for more of the maimings than all other breeds combined, those deaths and injuries are anticipated not accidental.

Some institutions pretend that attacks by pit bulls are unique, unexpected, accidental events; the preponderance of evidence proves that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. To refer to pit bull attacks as accidental is to turn our eyes away from an ugly truth -- it is a whitewash. Adopting a pit bull or other fighting breed into a family environment is a grossly negligent act.

We urge city attorneys, prosecutors, district attorneys, sheriffs, and others to review their approach to this growing public safety menace, and to form appropriate policies in response. Parents and others who endanger their children by adopting pit bulls must be held accountable. Animal shelters or humane agencies that place fighting breeds in family environments bear an even greater burden of responsibility and, therefore, must accept liability for these attacks.

* * * * *Notes:

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Who let dog owners down? was published as a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun on April 15th. The letter was signed by the president of B-More Dog, a Baltimore advocacy group. The lines below are taken from the letter:

the majority of legislators did this because our testimony and advocacy efforts over the last year helped them understand what it takes to build a safe and humane community for people and their pets

That's what makes it absolutely unacceptable that a compromise could not be found

Lawmakers have been receiving thousands of our e-mails, letters and calls

They have heard us testify at task force and Judiciary Committee meetings.

They have seen us at our rallies on Lawyer's Mall and in their offices on Humane Lobby Day.

So imagine how thousands of us felt as we hung on to every word Monday night listening to the House floor proceedings online.

The bill got moved later and later into the night

we desperately engaged in debates with delegates on Facebook

and frantically continued making calls, texting, and e-mailing

our elected officials. . . chose to make a mockery of us by playing "Who Let the Dogs Out?"

That song and all your laughter will ring in our ears

Rest assured, you will not stop hearing from us

After all, somebody has to have Maryland citizens' best interests at heart.

* * * * *

SRUV had earlier identified the relationship between some forms of pit bull advocacy and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Narcissism). As we read the letter from B-More Dog we recognized the traits associated with this disorder, including the inflated sense of self-importance, the belief that all other opinions or beliefs are invalid or inconsequential, the sense of being aggrieved, the self-pity, the sense of having been betrayed, the explosive rage, and the urge for revenge.

This letter is a catalog of symptoms and helps explain the cult-like fervor that some pit bull advocates exhibit. One can only imagine the pressure these people brought to bear on the Delegates and Senators; with the access pit bull advocates enjoyed the pressure would have been impossible to resist. The letter illustrates why legislatures are not suited to drafting or passing appropriate pit bull legislation, and why we now depend on the Courts to protect the public.

Monday, April 15, 2013

On January 14, 2013, legislation was introduced into the Maryland General Assembly which would have abrogated the Court of Appeal's April 26, 2012 ruling that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

Four days later (on January 18, 2013) the HSUS posted a Factsheet to their website, authored by HSUS Maryland state director Tami Santelli. This 1½ page document provides valuable insights into HSUS's abortive attempt to pass breed neutral legislation in Maryland.

The document is replete with errors and misrepresentations. SRUV has selected a few of the most egregious examples and offer our commentary below.

* * * * *

This misguided ruling is contrary to all available scientific evidence about dogs, which tells us that breed is not predictive of behavior.

Experience proves otherwise. By the 13th of April there has been 9 fatal dog attacks during calendar year 2013, all of them by pit bulls. There has been a total of 99 reported fatal and disfiguring attacks, 91 of which have been by pit bulls (see below). Fatal and disfiguring dog attacks on humans would be statistically insignificant were it not for pit bulls.

* * * * *

According to a recent study by the Maddie’s Fund Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida, shelter staff identified 55 of 120 dogs as “pit bulls,” but only 25 were actually confirmed through DNA testing as having either APBT, AS or ST heritage; the others just had an appearance that made staff mistakenly believe they did. The staff also misidentified 20 percent of the dogs as non-pit bull type dogs when they actually did have APBT, AS or ST blood. This study underscores how even experts can be misled by appearances.

This Factsheet argument borrows language from a May 2, 2012 blog post by Mark Markarian (President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund). Mr Markarian's post was published within a week of the Court's ruling and was an early indicator of the arguments the HSUS would use during the Maryland campaign.

The University of Florida "study" does not qualify as academic research. There is no published work other than a poster. All five citations on the poster refer to pit bull advocacy individuals or groups. The Florida study is similar to an earlier study by Victoria Voith, which we evaluated here.

The vulnerabilities in both the Voith and the Florida studies are too numerous to discuss here. Most important of these vulnerabilities is the canine DNA test itself, which pit bull advocates are fixated on for unknown reasons: it doesn't help them. Mars Wisdom Panel, the inventor of canine DNA testing, offers the following disclaimer: ". . . we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pitbull. Any Pitbull type breed tested using Wisdom Panel™ MX Mixed Breed Analysis is likely to reveal a combination of several breeds."* Results of DNA testing are ambiguous and reveal little. The fact is that a dog can carry markers of a number of different breeds and still be a pit bull; they've been cross-bred since fighting dogs were invented.

SRUV has published numerous posts on pit bull identification and definitions, as well as on the deniers. Some of these posts can be found on the "Identifying Pit Bulls" sidebar.

* * * * *

Scientific evidence presented by nationally recognized sources (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and other independent entities) reliably demonstrates that dog breed is not a key predicative [sic] factor in dog bites.

It's still false. See our first comment above.

* * * * *

Moreover, there is no truth to the myth that certain types of dogs have locking jaws or other sinister traits.

False. A pit bull bite is unlike any other dog bite and to quibble over word choice is disingenuous. The term "gripping" may be more accurate than "locking" in this application. When pit bulls bite they remain attached and the resulting wound looks as if a Berkel meat cutter had removed tissue down to the bone. We hesitate to suggest that anyone should look at images of these wounds, as it requires a level of voyeurism. But for those who require proof we host several images on this page.

* * * * *

While all domesticated dogs have been selectively bred to enhance characteristics like hunting and herding ability, they share the same basic physical structure and communicate with the same signals and language..

ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE. Pit bulls DO NOT signal their intent to attack; such signaling would be disadvantageous in the pit. Pit bulls are unique among all dogs in initiating an attack without revealing any sign of intent. Is it possible that HSUS is the only group that hasn't recognized this?

* * * * *

For these reasons, efforts aimed at increasing public safety by singling out one breed/type of dog have never been successful.

Patently, blatantly false. Exceedingly, gratuitously false. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is effective wherever it has been carefully written and enforced (see this post).

* * * * *

. . . efforts to protect the public from dog bites must be preventative and comprehensive in nature, and extended across the board to the owners of all dogs.

Wrong. We must not impose the same restrictions on Yorkshire Terriers and their owners that should reasonably be imposed on fighting breeds, for reasons too obvious to explain. This blind "breed neutral" approach has obvious, inherent, irreconcilable contradictions. These conceptual flaws led to the year-long debacle in Maryland.

* * * * *

Summary:

The HSUS has been one of our most respected animal welfare institutions, but they have become obsessive in their advocacy of pit bulls. As the Maryland pit bull Factsheet demonstrates, the HSUS has chosen to distort the facts to defend and promote an unpredictable, dangerous category of dog. This radical advocacy appeals only to a fraction of their donors and is incomprehensible to the rest of us. The HSUS has put itself in danger of losing the credibility they have established with the American people.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Concerns that every nip at an ankle could turn into what some lawmakers called "1-800-Dog-Bite" killed the bill with minutes to go before the end of the legislative session. WTOP 103.5 FM

* * * * *

The Maryland General Assembly extended the final day of their legislative session until midnight April 8th, in part to allow additional time for a compromise on pit bull legislation.

At 10:00pm, when it became clear the differences between the House and Senate would not be resolved, the House leadership tabled the legislation.

On the morning after Tami Santelli of the Humane Society of the United States responded by pointlessly ramping up the rhetoric:

What happens next? People get kicked out of their houses. Pit bulls get sent to shelters and get euthanized. Businesses struggle with increased liability for another year.

For the last year the HSUS, Ms Santelli in particular, has worked to create a climate of fear and impending doom should the General Assembly fail to pass HB 78 / SB 160.

The legislation failed for the wrong reasons; fortunately it did fail. The Court's April 26, 2012 finding was correct and the General Assembly's frantic efforts to abrogate that ruling were inherently flawed. The desperation became evident in the final hours, when a bizarre compromise was floated which would have discriminated against older victims of pit bull attacks by providing strict liability only for those victims under the age of twelve.

People learned to stop smoking in restaurants and public buildings, and we can learn to live with restrictions on pit bulls. We can and must find reasonable ways of reducing the pit bull population over time, and of keeping the public and our more vulnerable animal companions safe in the interim.

A pit bull has killed a human once every twelve days so far this year,* a death rate that should be intolerable in a civil society. It has taken years for the HSUS to paint themselves into a legal and financial corner with their advocacy of pit bulls, and there is no quick and easy way out. Now they must find the courage and foresight to extricate themselves from their predicament.

* * * * *Notes:

This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

* As of April 9th there have been 8 canine homicides in the US during the 2013 calendar year, for an average of one death every twelve days. All of these human deaths were caused by pit bulls. See Current Dog Attack Statistics.

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Nearly a year after the Court's ruling that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, the House and the Senate continue to debate the pending legislation (HB 78 / SB 160). There is agreement between the chambers on all the major points of the legislation, but the differences, while minor, are delaying agreement.

Both chambers of the General Assembly agree on the following:

Both versions of the bill abrogate the Court's finding of April 26 2012 that pit bulls are inherently dangerous;

Both versions of the bill essentially codify the common law standard of the one-bite rule that existed prior to the Court's April 26 2012 ruling;

And both versions of the bill are breed neutral, a provision included at the insistence of the HSUS.

The House and the Senate bills differ only on the level of proof that a defendant is required to show in court. While the legislators have quibbled for the better part of a month over a preponderance of evidence as opposed to clear and convincing evidence, three children were killed by pit bulls in the month of March:

Monica Renee Laminack. Bryan County, GA (March 27, -2 yo)

Daxton Borchardt, Walworth County, WI (March 6, -1 yo)

Ryan Maxwell, Galesburg, IL (March 2, 7 yo)

Among the numerous other attacks this month was the March 13th attack on 54-yo Linda Henry, who lost an ear, an eye, both arms, and her scalp (The Times-Picayune). Under either level of proof, preponderance or clear and convincing, the pit bulls involved in these deaths and maulings could conceivably be freed and the owners, landlords, and insurers could be free of liability, simply by proving their dogs had no prior history of aggression.

The legislative analysts and consultants and lawmakers who wrote the bill ignored the fact that pit bulls are subject to Idiopathic rage, the forbidden subject at the core of the Court's ruling. None of the pit bulls involved in these three deaths had previously shown signs of aggression; the majority of pit bull attacks are by pit bulls previously thought to be non-aggressive. Under HB 78 / SB 160 they would all be freed.

The legislators ought to have questioned the breed neutral provision, which implies that Yorkshire Terriers will be treated with the same severity as the pit bulls that killed Monica, Daxton, and Ryan. Breed neutral is not an inviolate moral principle. Breed neutral, when it comes to pit bulls, is a fatal naïveté.

The legislation is flawed at the core. The only right action for Maryland legislators would be to abandon the bill and allow the Court's April 26, 2012 ruling to stand.

* * * * *Notes:

This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Monday, April 1, 2013

. . . for Owners of Pit Bulls, or Their Landlords or Insurers, on How To Avoid Liability Under Maryland's HB 78 / SB 160 in The Event Of A Pit Bull Attack

(excerpts from the news for how pit bull owners, landlords, or insurers might respond if they find themselves in court)

* * * * *

The House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate have bills that hold the pet owner responsible, if they knew their dog would attack someone.WBAL

The recommended defense for a pit bull owner, landlord, or insurer to avoid liability:

But your honor, I didn't have any reason to expect my dog would attack.

* * * *

An owner would have been presumed responsible for a dog's attack on another person, but the owner could escape liability by showing more evidence than the plaintiffs that there was no prior history indicating the animal was dangerous.Pit bull bill compromise unravels, The Baltimore Sun

Recommended defense:

I've raised these dogs since they were puppies. I don't know why they attacked, but they've never shown any aggression before.

* * * * *

If [you] have a dog that has no propensity to violence, and then all of a sudden bites somebody, . . . now you've gotta go to court and prove that your dog, Fluffy, is a good dog and never had any propensity to do violence.
(Senator Frosh in a floor debate, at 9 - 42 seconds in attached audio)

Recommended defense:

My dog, Fluffy, is a good dog and never had any propensity to do violence.

* * * * *

Commentary:

The irony may be overstated, but situations similar to these are inevitable if the General Assembly enacts the new legislation.

Victims of pit bull attacks are often left to their own resources in their efforts to seek a legal remedy for a pit bull attack. Owners of pit bulls, on the other hand, are often mysteriously funded and provided with expensive attorneys. The attorneys who work with pit bull advocacy groups will easily game HB 78 / SB 160 with answers like those suggested above. The attacking pit bulls will return to the safety and comfort of their homes and the owners will be free of liability.

Suivez l'argent à la trace.* It may lead a resourceful journalist to a Pulitzer prize.

* * * * *Notes:

This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.